![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In one of my recent posts, I mentioned that circumcising a child for reasons that are not solidly medical or religious is something that should be thought about in terms of what the child may prefer, not what you want.
Someone pulled me up on this, saying that they consider mutilation because of religion a bad reason for doing it.
I actually agree, and I'm surprised it took someone so long to pull me up on this one. My reasons for including it in the 'acceptable' category are a mixture of tolerance and what I think of as the significantly lesser evil.
I actually don't agree with it, but when addressing the issues around circumcision, breaking a couple of thousand year's worth of religious tradition is something that takes education and baby steps. Just saying "You're wrong and your culture and traditions of the last few thousand years are wrong..." Well, most people are going to dig in their heels and think (rightly) one doesn't understand, or is a bigot.
So why would they even start to consider the other options in that circumstance? Why would they even start to listen to your objections with an open mind, since you clearly don't have an open mind when it comes to their way of life?
I also look at it this way, there are many cultures that would look at things Western culture does, like attitudes to nudity, the lack of skin contact, and the baby sleeping in a separate room to its parents, that they would find horrific and abusive ideas. They couldn't understand how you could want to psychologically scar your child this way.
If some of my religious friends had their child circumcised because that was an aspect of their religion, I would accept it without issue. I don't have to agree with it to support them and their cultural/tradional reasons for doing it. Plus, the child will be growing up in a culture where it's the norm, so they are way less likely to have issues with it.
My preference would still be for it not to be done, but that's personal, and I'm not in a place to understand the significance of thousands of years worth of teaching and tradition.
Having been to ante-natal and breast-feeding classes, religion has still been by far the best of the non-medical reasons I've heard for circumcision. I find it quite acceptable when compared to reasons like "I want him to look like his father," and the vastly more common, "I think it looks nicer."
Some people could say the same thing about female genital mutilation or foot-binding. "I think it looks nicer, and I want her to look like her mother." People would think these reasons disgusting, and they'd be right.
The back-up excuse is often one of cleanliness and preventing disease. They want to be a good parent and reduce the risks to their child. I figure if you can't teach your child to wash their gentials effectively, then what makes you think they wash their backside properly, an area way more likely to harbour unhealthy bacteria? As for the supposedly increased risks of STDs, if you've raised the kid right and educated them about sex properly, when they're older they should be using condoms anyway, so that's no excuse.
Basically I find these reasons fall into the "I can't be bothered trying to teach my child things they should know, so I'll just mutilate them and save myself some trouble" category.
Interestingly, I've yet to hear any of these reasons coming from the fathers, only the mothers. The fathers are usually silent on the matter. Maybe they agree, but they never seem to be the one jumping forward with the reasons.
It's gender differences again. There are things and areas where one gender will have incredible difficulty understanding the needs and mindsets of the other, where they will find things acceptable for one sex and not the other. Despite the way it's often presented, it's not all guys not understanding women's needs, it does in fact work the other way, too. But that's a different rant.
I'm not saying all men don't want their kids circumcised and are forced to by their partners. There will be plenty of men out there wanting it done for all the same reasons. I'm saying that to date, I have have not heard a single non-religious guy say he wanted his son circumcised, but I've heard a number of women pushing their reasons for the decision. Some guys will probably speak up in the comments now saying they were for it, and that's fine. But they will be the first I've heard it from. Whereas I've heard women backing up their reasons for circumcision for years.
The crazy (and disgusting) thing is, that if you asked these same people to consider genital mutilation of their daughters for the exact same reasons, they would likely be utterly horrified and think you a sick bastard.
I don't think there's any good non-medical reason for mutilating the genitals of the child you profess to love and care about, but religion and cultural tradition is certainly a far superior reason compared to cosmetic preferences.
Someone pulled me up on this, saying that they consider mutilation because of religion a bad reason for doing it.
I actually agree, and I'm surprised it took someone so long to pull me up on this one. My reasons for including it in the 'acceptable' category are a mixture of tolerance and what I think of as the significantly lesser evil.
I actually don't agree with it, but when addressing the issues around circumcision, breaking a couple of thousand year's worth of religious tradition is something that takes education and baby steps. Just saying "You're wrong and your culture and traditions of the last few thousand years are wrong..." Well, most people are going to dig in their heels and think (rightly) one doesn't understand, or is a bigot.
So why would they even start to consider the other options in that circumstance? Why would they even start to listen to your objections with an open mind, since you clearly don't have an open mind when it comes to their way of life?
I also look at it this way, there are many cultures that would look at things Western culture does, like attitudes to nudity, the lack of skin contact, and the baby sleeping in a separate room to its parents, that they would find horrific and abusive ideas. They couldn't understand how you could want to psychologically scar your child this way.
If some of my religious friends had their child circumcised because that was an aspect of their religion, I would accept it without issue. I don't have to agree with it to support them and their cultural/tradional reasons for doing it. Plus, the child will be growing up in a culture where it's the norm, so they are way less likely to have issues with it.
My preference would still be for it not to be done, but that's personal, and I'm not in a place to understand the significance of thousands of years worth of teaching and tradition.
Having been to ante-natal and breast-feeding classes, religion has still been by far the best of the non-medical reasons I've heard for circumcision. I find it quite acceptable when compared to reasons like "I want him to look like his father," and the vastly more common, "I think it looks nicer."
Some people could say the same thing about female genital mutilation or foot-binding. "I think it looks nicer, and I want her to look like her mother." People would think these reasons disgusting, and they'd be right.
The back-up excuse is often one of cleanliness and preventing disease. They want to be a good parent and reduce the risks to their child. I figure if you can't teach your child to wash their gentials effectively, then what makes you think they wash their backside properly, an area way more likely to harbour unhealthy bacteria? As for the supposedly increased risks of STDs, if you've raised the kid right and educated them about sex properly, when they're older they should be using condoms anyway, so that's no excuse.
Basically I find these reasons fall into the "I can't be bothered trying to teach my child things they should know, so I'll just mutilate them and save myself some trouble" category.
Interestingly, I've yet to hear any of these reasons coming from the fathers, only the mothers. The fathers are usually silent on the matter. Maybe they agree, but they never seem to be the one jumping forward with the reasons.
It's gender differences again. There are things and areas where one gender will have incredible difficulty understanding the needs and mindsets of the other, where they will find things acceptable for one sex and not the other. Despite the way it's often presented, it's not all guys not understanding women's needs, it does in fact work the other way, too. But that's a different rant.
I'm not saying all men don't want their kids circumcised and are forced to by their partners. There will be plenty of men out there wanting it done for all the same reasons. I'm saying that to date, I have have not heard a single non-religious guy say he wanted his son circumcised, but I've heard a number of women pushing their reasons for the decision. Some guys will probably speak up in the comments now saying they were for it, and that's fine. But they will be the first I've heard it from. Whereas I've heard women backing up their reasons for circumcision for years.
The crazy (and disgusting) thing is, that if you asked these same people to consider genital mutilation of their daughters for the exact same reasons, they would likely be utterly horrified and think you a sick bastard.
I don't think there's any good non-medical reason for mutilating the genitals of the child you profess to love and care about, but religion and cultural tradition is certainly a far superior reason compared to cosmetic preferences.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
If we're going to say that people who practice ancient beliefs like circumcision are just wrong, well, let's reclaim the land that we've put aside for the aboriginals for a start. Time they started living in the modern world. Their beliefs about land and community are based partially on superstition.
I don't think there's many people on my friends list that would support an idea like that, but it's really not so different. If we can respect the aboriginal beliefs to the point where we give them land on which to practice them, allow them the choice of white man's or aboriginal law and punishment, why should we give any less consideration to other groups?
Most western views of religion tend to have it very compartmentalised, which isn't true for many others. For many cultures, their religion isn't a small separate part of their overall life, but informs their everyday living and forms a significant part of their cultural heritage.
Put another way, why don't we set about scrapping Easter and Christmas breaks? The percentage of Christians in Aust is small these days, not to mention the fact that all that stuff is based on even older pagan beliefs. We still have them because they've become part of our cultural heritage, and you can't just change that on a moment's notice.
The groups I don't apply this sort of consideration to are recent, or are basing their decisions around asthetic choice with no basis in fact. "I want bub to look like his dad," is ridiculous. It's saying that a child who is genetically derived from a guy isn't going to be enough like him without surgery.
Can you imagine how people would react if a parent wanted their child to have plastic surgery for no other reason than to make them look like their father? Or if a parent wanted their child to have surgery to reshape their ears to points because they thought the fairy look was nicer?
But I'm getting away from my point and ranting, sorry.
Most of the people who believe that it is cleaner/reduces STDs/looks better aren't coming from a cultural/traditional background of doing it that dates back beyond their own generation. Many of them are basing the decision on personal preference or something they've been told or heard, without looking into it at anything more than a surface level.
If someone says to me that they've looked into it, and from the research they've done, they are firmly convinced that the benefits to their child outweighs the risks, I can respect that even if I still happen disagree. But I also have the option of saying, "Really, what's the latest info?" and getting a heads-up.
I can't respect the decision of someone whose only reason is "Oh it stops disease," and they haven't done the research or even simply bothered to ask the family doctor. When what has instead happened is either they've read an article, seen something on Today Tonight, had one or two friends or relatives say it's better, or have just vaguely settled on the idea that it must be the right thing. And based on a vague notion that this must be right, they'll have their child operated on.
I hope that made some sort of sense... I'm kind of vague today.
From:
no subject
Case in point, traditional marrage in indigenious communities are often used as a defense of underage rape. Is it okay for a man to force a minor to have sex with him because "tradtionally" he is married to her in his "custom"? Judges are often afraid of being seen as culturally insensitive so give softer sentences- how do you think that makes the victim feel? It's okay for them to do this to me because I'm black?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Aboriginal-men-twisting-customary-law/2007/04/04/1175366301126.html
(I've read about this over the past few years on numerous times, but this was the first link that I found when searching this morning)
I'm in support of changing the Xmas/Easter breaks because they do not suit many people in Australian society anymore. What would be fairer would be a number of days of leave people could use for "culturally significant days" depending on their own background. So someone who is Buddist might use it for Visak Day, a Pagan my use it for solstice etc etc
People who blindly follow something without thinking about why they are doing it scare me. It's this type of thinking that causes war, abuse, genocide and other atrocities.
There are studies that *do* back up the claim of STD prevention, though they are often looking at HIV transmission in Africa, it doesn't mean that they are not valid. It also doesn't mean everyone who subscribes to this point of view gets their information from the tabloids. But I would consider it to be more justifiable than doing something because you blindly follow something your elders did without giving it thought.
From:
no subject
What I don't get is why you'd question the person who claims to have done research (and automatically think that they are wrong), but won't bat an eyelid at someone who says it's "cultural".
I'm rambling today also.